Rollo again!
Matman
Again I'm rather late on this, but i thought those wanting
a good article on Rollo and what the various sources
say about him, might want to look at, the article on him
by David Douglas in the English Historical review 1942, p417-36.
Rather old, but a very good summary on what the sources actually
say about him.
eg Richer of Rheims calls him _filio Catilli_ (son of Ketil)
I think Richer was writing later than Dudo of St.Quentin,
but the Rheims archives were the best.
eg a charter of richard II for St.Ouen, which predates Dudo
and the other later sources mentions the _atavus Ralphus_
of the duke. So the tradition of Rollo = Rolf must have
been established by then?
Matt
Stewart Baldwin
use...@login.com (Matman) wrote:
Since the above cited article by Douglas seems to be one of the main
secondary sources used by many who support the alleged Norwegian
origin of Rollo, a brief discussion of Douglas's article is in order.
I agree with Douglas that the reference to Rollo as "filio Catilli" by
Richer of Rheims can be dismissed. Richer used the generally reliable
chronicle of Flodoard as a framework, which he then expanded with much
legendary material of dubious value. This Catillus is a significant
figure in Richer, but is apparently unknown from other sources, and
his legendary nature is evident. The statement that Rollo was the son
of Catillus is apparently an attempt by Richer to amplify the fame of
Catillus (whose existence is doubtful) by giving him a famous son.
Douglas then outlines the well known saga statements regarding Rollo's
supposed identification with Ganger-Rolf, son of Rognvald. To support
his claim that "Rollo" is an acceptable Latin form for "Hrolfr",
Douglas brings forward a single charter (mentioned above) which reads
"atavus Rolphus" (not "Ralphus") which appears to be referring to
Rollo (p. 421). However, as Douglas admits, the charter itself is not
above suspicion. Another example mentioned in a footnote is a certain
Turstinus filius Rolv who was apparently the same person as a
Turstinus filius Rollonis. This is a very small sample to make the
claim that Rollo was a Latin form for Rolf. Just as likely is the
possibility that the names Rollo and Ralph were confused in a couple
of manuscripts. Since Ralph was such a common name in Normandy and
England, we should see a large number of examples of "Rollo" and
"Ralph" being used as the same name, if they were in fact the same.
Since the number of examples which Douglas was able to produce is so
small, it is more likely that some sort of copying mistake was made on
the above examples, in which the uncommon name Rollo was accidently
replaced by the extremely common (and similar) Ralph. Important
negative evidence is not given, for Douglas never mentions that there
is a Norse name "Hrollaug" for which "Rollo" is an obvious Latinized
form. Since the sagas give Rognvald of More two clearly different
sons named Hrollaug and Hrolf, it would be difficult to argue that
Hrollaug and Hrolf are supposed to be the same name.
The main other piece of evidence Douglas gives for accepting the saga
account is the supposed confirmation of a saga statement about
Ganger-Rolf in the contemporary records. The following statement by
Ari is quoted:
"Another son of Othere (he says) was Helge. He harried in Scotland
and won there as his booty Nithbeorg, daughter of King Beolan and of
Kathleen, daughter of Ganger-Rolf."
Douglas then reads between the lines, and states that since Kathleen
is a Celtic name, her mother would almost certainly be a Christian.
He then turns to the nearly contemporary "Lament for the Death of
William Longsword", which states that William was born outside France
of a Christian mother at a time when his father was still pagan. He
then states:
"The suggestion of the Landnamabok is thus confirmed by an epic poem
composed in Gaul in the tenth century. The fact would seem to be a
powerful, if not a conclusive, argument in favor of the identity of
Rollo with Ganger-Rolf."
The first sentence in the above quote is completely false. There is
not a single detail in the quote from Ari which is confirmed by the
statement in "Lament for the death ...". This argument used by
Douglas, in which he deduces an additional statement not in the
original, so that there is something which can then be "confirmed", is
unacceptable. The fact that Douglas would refer to such an argument
as "powerful" only serves to emphasize how weak his argument really
is.
Stewart Baldwin